Archive for: politics
Just when you think the RIAA and friends couldn’t become any more idiotic, incompetent, downright retarded, they go and out do themselves. The latest mad grab for money (and attempt to prop up their dying business model) is to use the US government to mandate that all cellphones be legally required to contain FM radio transmitters. At first, the idea seems somewhat novel and perhaps even useful in a few rare circumstances. That is, until reality sets in. There are already plenty of radios and antennas running amuck inside of your standard cell/smartphone, eating batteries and fighting against each others’ wireless waves to boot. Jamming in another — yeah, no thanks. Not to mention, if it comes down to having to fit in an FM transmitter or 4G radio, guess which one I and pretty much ever other consumer is going to vote for. Sorry radio.
You know, the audacity of the RIAA/MPAA astounds me. Not only do they lie about their general purpose in life, but they constantly push their personal profit seeking ways harder and further with each passing year. If you think the whole censorship/web monitoring thing in China is bad, the RIAA/MPAA’s new plans submitted to the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement are enough to scare anyone. Have a look for yourself, here’s what those bastards want:
Since Google made their bold stance to pull out of China regarding censorship issues earlier this year, the internet world has been in a firestorm. More recently however we’ve actually seen more controversy and actions taken regarding the “bigger picture”. For instance, this past week GoDaddy announced that they too would be following in Google’s footsteps and abandoning any further .cn domain registrations. Also on the list of potential movers is Dell, whom stated the idea was on the table.
One company whom so far has publicly (and rather proudly) voiced that they will continue operations in China is that of Microsoft. Former CEO Bill Gates was quoted saying:
At some point you have to ask yourself, do you want to do business in that country or not…”
Microsoft PR has gone on further stating that while they [Microsoft] appreciate other companies’ stances on the censorship/China issue, Microsoft remains committed to China and obeying local laws.
It is this stance that has Microsoft in the cross-hairs of the US Government body who took to their podiums today to denounce Microsoft’s decision as foolish and short sighted while simultaneously praising Google for theirs. And for the most part, I agree with the governments stance.
For me personally, Microsoft’s viewpoint leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Their defense — that they’re merely obeying local laws — is a bullshit excuse and response. What if China supported mass genocide and the killing of red headed step children thanks to specially crafted chips implanted in every person residing in the country at birth that allowed constant 24/7 tracking? If Microsoft made such a chip for much broader users, would they continue to directly deal with China and sell them said chips simply because they were merely “obeying the law”?
Now I realize the genocide example is an extreme example that fortunately is not taking place (in China anyway). But the main point still stands. Merely pushing off all of their reasoning as “because they said so” is the worst defense Microsoft could use. In the end it leaves them looking like pro-communist anti-consumer rights supporters which isn’t exactly the image they want to portray.
So again I ask: Is this all getting overblown or is Microsoft treading a fine line?
DailyTech
Now before we go any further, I’ll make known that I understand Google isn’t Android and Android isn’t Google. Google just so happens to be one of the biggest OHA members who puts the bulk of marketing dollars behind the mobile OS. With that said however, so far Google has been Android. Any Android device you pick up that’s been labeled a “Google Experience” device as been stuffed full of Gmail, Google Maps, Googlve Voice, etc. A tight knit blend of hardware and software. AT&T is set to start the Android madness this month with their first (and utter POS) attempt at the Android game with the Backflip. Besides being tainted with all kinds of useless, overpriced AT&T crapware and services, a new revelation coming to light affects not only the Backflip, but all Android devices on AT&T — Google won’t be the go to service.
That title will now go to Yahoo. To be clear, it’s only the search provider for now as Google apps are bundled with the Backflip in particular. But could it signal a different stance by AT&T? Will future Android phones not only come riddled with god awful AT&T crap apps and less than stellar (read: half-baked) Yahoo apps? Replacing the default search provider with Yahoo may not seem like a big deal, but to some it’s a huge decision. Besides filling AT&T execs’ pockets with cash, I’d like to know any other reasoning as on the desktop search front, Yahoo has been sucking hard the last several months.
When all is said and done however, the relatively low-end feature set of the Backflip coupled with the boat load of bloatware compliments of AT&T means this phone is a strict “no buy/pass”. Unless you just have to have a cheap Android device on Big Blue, you’re better off unlocking some other Android device for AT&T usage or sucking it up and waiting for 1 of 4 other Android devices set to launch on AT&T this year.
Good, bad, ugly?
Android and Me
- February 26, 2010 2:09 pm
In the current economy, acquiring or even maintaining a job is pretty hard stuff. If you are lucky enough to keep a job, work is often sporadic and pay is stagnant or reduced. “Job security” is highly sought after. If job security is really what you’re after, Google is “the” place to be — specifically the Street View team.
A new EU ruling documented in Article 29 states that the current 12-month time span is a “too disproportionate” amount of time for images to be stored. Ok, fair enough. The new limit proposed is a mere 6-months. So, every 6-months the street team has to go around re-snapping all of these pictures — bingo, job security.
My question is, unless there is a major change such as a new building or road added, why take a picture if nothing has changed? So some guy with a completely blurred face has been on Street View for 12 months, what’s the big deal? Am I missing something?
(Google, are you hiring Street View drivers…?)
Pocket-Lint
[Image Source]
- February 21, 2010 1:21 pm
Remember that little article we highlighted a couple days back concerning Ubisoft and their new anti-consumer DRM? Well, what’s a good debate without hearing both sides to the story. An Ubisoft spokesperson went on the record defending their DRM stating that it’s for the betterment of us all. Right. Per Ubisoft Spokesperson by way of interview with PC Gamer:
So what’s in it for gamers?
Ubi say there are three advantages to their online services. The first: you don’t need a disc. The second: that you can install the game on as many PCs as you like, as many times as you like. And the third: the automatic uploading of savegames to Ubisoft’s servers.
Hmm, they’re terrible at jokes — cause this one isn’t funny. As CrunchGear notes, installing and playing a game without having to actually keep the disc in the computer is far from an “advantage” as it should have been that way since day 1.
As far as that little diddy on cloud-based backups compliments of Ubisoft — I’m pretty sure that’s on the far bottom of the totem pole of most gamers. What is much more important to gamers? Hmm, perhaps backing up our own games without having to fall into the “thief” category thanks to the BS “DRM Circumvention clause” in the DMCA. Not to mention, the backups that are sent to Ubisoft aren’t anything important. They’re simply the local game saves backed up a second time to Ubisoft. And seeing as how you have to have an internet connection to even play games such as Assassin’s Creed II and Settlers VII, the whole point of backups in the unfortunate event of a network failure render your little gaming session useless.
Yes, “Made for PC guys, by PC guys”. What a friend indeed.
CrunchGear > PC Gamer
- February 17, 2010 10:53 pm
This whole massive fight against so called “piracy” that has been blamed for everything from the death of the music industry to the cause of world hunger is unfortunately, not going anywhere anytime soon. I can tell however, who will be going somewhere (as in out of business somewhere) very soon – Ubisoft. Let me clarify — Ubisoft will go out of business if they continue to release games with DRM like that of the cancer that’s found in recently released Settlers VII and Assassin’s Creed II.
Just like EA’s follies of the not too distant past, Ubisoft is requiring these two titles to maintain a constant internet connection in order to play the game — at all. If the game’s connection is interrupted even for a second, no matter where you’re at in the game, it’s lights off and game over. Best of all, your progress isn’t saved. Ya, it sucks.
You’d think these senseless idiots who run these companies would realize such restrictive DRM is the worst possible way to stop piracy when in fact, such measures will actually increase piracy. But that’s really what they want I guess…
ThatVideoGameBlog
- February 15, 2010 2:34 pm
Score one for common sense today.
The basis of the internet is that the flow of information should be unencumbered and open to all. As more and more businesses finally get around to making the move online however, paywalls, false restrictions, and other types of anti-consumer/greed driven policies are being thrown up all over the place. Not only that, but common sense has been thrown out the window. In numerous cases over the last several years we’ve seen rather harmless and innocent actions such as merely linking to a page with copyrighted content getting the person doing the linking into hot water. One such case that perfectly illustrates this is the case involving tv-links.co.uk.
For several years now, tv-links has been fighting the UK courts and entertainment industry for being accused of aiding in copyright infringement by simply linking to YouTube videos of infringing content. To the you and I, individuals with at least some amount of common sense, drawing any correlation between a simple link to outright “theft” (as the entertainment industry would like to call it) is rather shortsighted.
Cooler heads have prevailed however as a UK court ruled in favor of tv-links, stating that they did not in fact, infringe on any content. While a happy ending for common sense and the general internet population as a whole, it’s still a shame that so much time (years) and countless dollars were wasted on such a frivolous and stupid lawsuit.
When will big media learn the ways of the web…
TechDirt
- December 11, 2009 6:58 am
Living in China and accessing banned media via online routes may soon be coming to an end. Over the last year, China’s State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) organization has closed down hundreds of file sharing networks and websites citing the normal “to protect the children and the people of China” propaganda. Accessing banned digital media can still be found in many markets via traditional CD/DVD options, but even those are drying up. It seems as if all of a sudden the Chinese government is getting big on IP and copyrights. Rather odd considering some of the highest rates of copyrighted and bootlegged material have originated from China.
While blocking and ultimately closing many file sharing sites such as BTChina — which mind you was up to 50 million active users — seems like a good idea on paper, the reality is that illegal files are not the only files shared across digital pipelines. Many legitimate files such as linux distros and information and content in that are in the public domain are two of the biggest things that instantly come to mind. Then there are other things such as banned media that for whatever reason isn’t allowed to be sold within the country. Remember, getting “illegal” content via a digital cable that comes into your house is easy, fast, and efficient. It gives Chinese a window to the world if you will.
Of course, the whole idea that the government can control you and everything you do is absurd to begin with. Forcing people to believe your way of thinking is hardly the way to rule a nation. But I’m just one blogger, what does my opinion matter?
Unfortunately, the many Chinese who stumble across closed sites will simply think that they’re down for some unforeseen reason that is the fault of the web host or site owner — not the government. With that, they’ll continue going on thinking that the government’s oppressive internet policies and draconian control scheme is actually a good thing. The government needs criticism. The people need sympathy.
If you were bound by an oppressive regime, unable to truly express yourself or access content that you wanted, what lengths would you go to?
Read Write Web
